Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ali S. Asani


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 11:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ali S. Asani

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence of any notability Sef rin gle Talk 01:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletions.   --  Sef rin gle Talk 01:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for failure to establish notability; the only reference is the subject's own website. --Nonstopdrivel 04:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Subject more than establishes WP:NOTE for academics. Seen as a prominent person in his field. Has written several books in his field. The very first ghit is his page at Harvard University. Article needs work.--Ispy1981 04:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weakest keep. Notable, but barely. Published works and Harvard status helps. Realkyhick 08:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletions.   -- David Eppstein 05:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The award cannot be verified from the Harvard Foundation's own website (because of the poor quality of the site, rather than because the claim is bogus, I would guess!) No other external sources. Has written some articles found on Google Scholar, but then so have I and I don't have a Wikipedia article! Fails WP:PROF unless some better external sources can be found. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  08:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems notable. 50+ hits on Google Scholar. 700+ hits on Google Web including links from: Harvard University, Institute of Ismaili Studies, UK, JSTOR, Oxford Journals. → AA (talk • contribs) — 10:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and Improve. Scholars do have notability. They just don't want their birth dates being published.--Edtropolis 14:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all scholars are notable. They must meet WP:PROF which I don't think this does. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk to me)  14:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep —  WP:PROF suggests notability is established by the receipt of a notable award which seems to be the case with the Harvard Award. That, coupled with his publishing should be enough.  Jody B   talk 15:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per above. Aminz 18:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, the award is mentioned on speaker bio's hosted by other academic institutions, which adds reliability and notability to the award. If someone can demonstrate that this award isnt notable I will take another look at the notability of this prof, but at this stage the award and publications push the subject over the line. John Vandenberg 22:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * See comment to RandomHumanoid below. I take no position on the notability of the award, but the fact that it's given by an organization he's directly involved with suggests that it isn't usable as a reliable secondary source. —David Eppstein 15:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- His list of publications and Harvard Foundation award establishes notability as a scholar and activist. His position as "Professor of the Practice of Indo-Muslim Languages and Culture" at Harvard does something even harder: establishes notability as a teacher.  Harvard has a number of different names for faculty who are hired as much or more for their teaching or their professional experience as for their academic scholarship: Proctor, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Preceptor, Senior Preceptor, but the highest is almost certainly "Professor of the Practice of X." -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep he's notable, though I am not sure whether professor the practice of elsewhere has they same connotations at Harvard. At some places it's fairly liberally awarded, as the teaching-only line is not tenure-track & tends to lack some of the perks. Not all the GS links are independent.  And two of the works are elementary textbooks,but that's fine for his position.DGG 03:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was referring specifically to the usage at Harvard--though even there it varies slightly from department to department. The standard of a Prof. of the Practice in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard is full-time, not adjunct unless someone has other evidence (Harvard faculty handbook, pg. 39).   -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete He is adjunct faculty, which is non-tenure track and frequently mentioned by people to inflate someone's importance or credentials. (For example, almost every physician associated with HMS (Harvard Med School) is a "clinical" professor of something, but that is a world apart from being an "actual" Harvard professor.)  But I'm concerned with the over-emphasis in many of these discussions on a Harvard affiliation, as if that in and of itself establishes notability.  I am not personally familiar with the award he received, but it is conceivable this is not as large a feather in his cap as some would have us imagine.-- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 15:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems he serves on the advisory board for the Harvard Foundation, so I don't think the award can be used as a reliable secondary source, regardless of its inherent notability. —David Eppstein 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wrong about this being an adjunct position. Funny thing -- I wrote my comment this morning while having breakfast with a (senior) faculty member who told me the position was equivalent to adjunct when I asked him what it was.  (Yes, we have breakfast with our laptops out.  He was reading the Times, I wikipedia.)  Turns out I was misinformed.  From the Crimson ...the post of professor in practice, a tenured position created during the 1992-1993 school year that allows faculty to teach and maintain private practice.  So, I do hereby stand humbly corrected.  (Nonetheless, my opinion regarding notability remains unchanged.)  -- R andom H umanoid ( &rArr; ) 02:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.